Failing Units

[neil_b 10]

"I find the failure to have effective recruiting efforts to be the most consistant thing that leads to failing packs."

 

When I have brought up the idea of recruiting over the years, I have repeatedly gotten responses like...

 

"Whose den are they going in? I don't have room in my den for more boys."

 

"If we recruit more boys we'll have to buy more gear and the troop trailer won't be big enough."

 

What they don't realize is that some day their boy may find himself the only one left his age in his pack or troop and may decide to quit rather than look for another unit with boys his age.

[ScoutNut 147]

This is BSA's "New Unit Retention Guide" for "starting and sustaining high-preforming quality units" -

 

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/membership/pdf/522-025_WB.pdf

 

They recommend having a COR, CC, unit leader, and unit committee (can be members from the "organizing" committee which is appointed by the CO at the get go), in place before recruiting youth or additional leaders. They also recommend having a dedicated, experienced, "New Unit" Commissioner, who is responsible for only one unit at a time, is involved from the very beginning, with the sales call on the prospective charter organization, and works with the new unit for 2-3 years before handing the unit off to a "regular" UC.

 

The 10 minimum youth is because 2 full dens, or patrols, work better, and are more sustainable. For Packs, this means BSA does not recommend scattering the boys over multiple age/grades/dens, of only 1, or 2, boys per den. They want 5 boys in the same level, per den, for 2 dens.

 

The 5 adult leaders come from the parents, and are over and above the registration of the unit "Key 3" and committee.

 

This is a great idea, and, if it can be followed, has the potential to create much more stable units. The problem of course is following this procedure.

 

This requires more involvement, dedication, and commitment, from the charter organizations.

 

This requires more involvement, dedication, and commitment, from the parents.

 

This requires more volunteers at the Commissioner level. This might be the hardest to pull off as most districts have a hard time finding 1 UC for every 3-4 units, much less having enough volunteers available for there to be UC's to work 1-1 with new units.

 

I don't think it is very likely that this whole process will be consistently followed. DE's are still paid in part based on their membership, and unit numbers so they have little incentive to put together 1 solid unit when they can get 2 iffy ones instead. The more the better. Widespread, rural areas will have a hard time meeting the numbers necessary for a new unit. This is why the required number of den leaders was reduced from 1 per den, to 1 in total, a number of years back. Webelos dens are generally lucky to have 5 boys. Disgruntled Webelos leaders, wanting to form their own Troop, will have a hard time meeting the larger youth requirement.

[Eagle92 110]

'Nut,

 

I agree that some DE will take quantity over quality, especially when being pressured by above. BUT the ones I met at PDL-1 were more interested in QUALITY over quantity. After all, most of us would rather do something right the first time, thna have to keep going back and back and back.....

[fred8033 1591]

I posted to another thread discussing this topic.

 

I've read much about failing units and the scouter suggestions how to fix them. There's always good suggestions, but I keep thinking the heart of the issue is being missed.

 

 

 

#1 Unit commisioners. Yeah right. It's always brought up. Over the last ten years, I've been involved in three units. When the pack I just joined was in trouble, I asked multiple times for a UC. It was like pulling teeth to get anyone at all to show up to help when the pack was on life support. I did get a professional staffer to visit but that was five years ago. I have not seen hide nor hair of a UC or anyone else since then. Or even any professional non-unit leader visiting our pack.

 

I'm sure some UC do a great job, but I've yet to see a single one. I've heard of several who stepped far beyond the UC role with the units they visited and caused problems. As far as I'm concerned ... and my apologies to any successful UC corps out there .... The UC concept is fundamentally and permanently broken. BSA at the national level needs to re-evaluate the UC goals and re-engineer the program. As it is now, the UC program is a joke.

 

SUGGESTION - Replace the UC corps with a sharing concept. Require each committee chair and each unit leader (CM, SM, ...) to separately visit another unit's pack/troop meeting and another unit's committee meeting ... every year. The DE would assign visits to share good examples and create mentoring between unit leaders. Never visiting the same unit year after year. Never flooding a unit with too many visitors. Ideally, each unit is visited twice each year; once at a pack/troop meeting and once at a planning meeting. As an incentive, add it as a requirement for the adult leader recognition knots.

 

 

 

#2 Scouter training and job descriptions forget the social side of scouting. The units that figure it out on their own are successful. Those that don't are always begging for volunteers. It's critical to get the adults to socialize, become friends and enjoy each other's company. The goal is to bond and make the volunteering fun, fulfilling and not a burden. Heck, if it works .... you make life long friends. The best part is that people will volunteer to help a friend without even being asked.

 

SUGGESTION - The committee chair (or another position) should be tasked with getting the adult leaders to build friendships and to bond for a common goal. And no, not to the point of "en flagrante indelicato." The easiest way is to invite everyone out for a quick drink after every monthly committee meeting. Or play a few games of hearts, cribbage, or other at camp EVERY NIGHT when possible.

 

 

 

#3 I think some units see how busy everyone is and they pair down the program. It's common sense, but opposite of what creates a successful program. The more busy and rich the pack schedule, the more families you will recruit and retain and the more volunteers you will get. Parents want their kids busy with things that develop their values, skills, friends and gets them out of the house. ... and affordable .... People want to volunteer to be part of a successful program. Most importantly, if the pack / troop doesn't provide a rich fulling program, something else will (sports, karate, ....).

 

 

 

#4 Every unit needs to tap the scouting background of their parents. Our pack has thrived as we have convinced our Eagle scout parents to step up to help.

 

 

[desertrat77 1144]

What's the root cause?

 

I think folks are looking at what it takes to be a leader, and then saying "Scouting ain't worth it."

 

It takes alot of time, energy, and money (out of your pocket oftentimes, Mr./Ms Leader) to put on even a C- program, one that fulfills the stereotype of car camping once in awhile and meeting once a week in the church basement to do the citizenship merit badges. This might appeal to some, but not many.

 

The best units are outdoors--adventure-driven outdoors, not the local campground--and don't seem to have any problem recruiting scouts or scouters.

[BadenP 93]

desertrat77

 

All I can say to your post is Amen brother! I agree with you 100%.

 

Fred

 

I like your idea since the commissioner corp is rapidly becoming an extinct species, we need to look for an viable alternative and pdq.

[allangr1024 71]

Our troop is failing, due to our lack of recruiting. We are now down to 4 scouts. Neither me (SM) nor our CC, nor any other adult with our troop has seen any training on how to do this, nor have we found much literature (I have read a pamphlet on open houses), nor are any of us recruiting types or professionals (Sales). I would love to have a unit commissioner come work with us.

 

The problem: I don't think our council or district has any unit commissioners. I have not met any. I have talked to our DE, asking for help, and our District commissioner. But in the 3 years I have been with the troop, the only visitors we have had were the Friends of Scouting fund raiser guys, and the OA election guys.

 

The DE gave me a list of boys who were Boy Scouts but who did not re-charter. I called them, but did not get any results. The District Commissioner told me to go to the Webolos dens and recruit. Our district list of cub scout leaders was so out of date I could not find many of them. Those I did find, said they were committed to the big troop down the street. No results.

 

Someone said there are 12 steps to build a troop. Can you elaborate? Is this in a publication? Let me know.

 

 

 

[jtswestark 11]

>>SUGGESTION - Replace the UC corps with a sharing concept. Require each committee chair and each unit leader (CM, SM, ...) to separately visit another unit's pack/troop meeting and another unit's committee meeting ... every year.

[jtswestark 11]

Allangr: you gotta keep slugging at it it wont happen over night. I dont know if any real helpful guide exists, but search the forum here and Im sure youll find plenty of wonderful reading materials to give you good insight.

Bottom line, you dont have to be a good salesman. You just have to believe in what your unit offers to young men. That passion is all the recruiting skill you need. The challenge is getting that passion in front of the right people at the right time, and thats where the hard work is at. The best, best, best, best recruiting tool is a strong outdoor program. If you arent camping once a month, if you arent going to scout camp each summer, if you arent working high or nearly high adventure trips in, its been my experience you will fail. You dont need to be a high roller to do these things, either. Then take these pictures and make posters of your events. Go to school open houses, area churches, community festivals/fairs, your charter org, every cub pack in the area, get your activities in the district/council newsletters/web pages; in other words anywhere you can get in front of youth, you have to be there. It can take *years* to build a relationship with an area pack, but you have to keep working it. Volunteer to assist at their pinewood derby, their B&G, their Arrow of Light/Crossover, treat them to lunch at the Klondike derby, invite them to visit one afternoon to a campout and introduce them to cobbler and a real campfire, invite them for Scoutcraft related pin nights given by your Scouts even if you arent getting any of their boys - keep at it and eventually youll get some parents that like what youre doing, who you are and will give you a shot. Get to know area leaders at Roundtables. If the mega troop meets on Mondays, consider meeting on Tuesdays in other words be an alternative to that mega unit sell your intimacy as an advantage! Dont isolate yourself from area troops, work with them so you all can gain. Relationships matter in the survival of units, and most of us are always willing to help each other out (believe it or not!).

 

[BadenP 93]

Allangr

 

How is the quality of your program? Is it fun, challenging, and outdoor oriented?

If I were in your position I would talk to other SM's in your district with successful troops at Roundtable or over coffee and get their advice, ask what works in their troops. The problem with publications is that they are way too generic to be much good. You may have some unique situations in your area that these other SM's can help you with, as well as how to make your program stronger and even more appealing to the youth.

 

Good Luck.

[TAHAWK 1420]

If we are talking about real units, rather than phantom units or in-school semi-phantom units, three factors are strongly correlated with success:

 

1. Was the unit properly started, as has been discussed above, with a real, working committee and a sponsoring CO?

 

2. Does the unit has an active Unit Commissioner who watches for needs and can help with those needs?

 

3. Are the unit Committee and unit leaders (including youth in Troops and Crews) well-trained, inclusive of a willingness to apply what they are taught?

 

I am thinking about three units that are teetering on the brink as I type.

 

Unit XX has had one break in charter in 102 years (This year we celebrate the 103rd anniversary of Scouting in NE Ohio.). It has had the same SM for over twenty years. Shortly after this SM took over, the unit took sixty-seven Scouts to summer camp. It is down to a dozen. It still has sufficient active commissioned Scouters (backpakers often have more adults than Scouts.). The Committee has always been active but untrained, so it exercises no oversight - none. There is no Unit Commissioner. The Scoutmaster really does believe in youth leadership, but he simply will not train the Scout leaders or support NYLT (the only outside training available now that district-level Scout leader training has gone away). The other Scouters sneak in some training every once and awhile on their own initiative. The Scoutmaster (in his late 40's) now mutters darkly about "boys today" and bemoans the poor leadership the untrained Scouts supply. He himself is untrained and sees no need to go to training - or roundtables - as there would be nothing to learn (His Scoutcraft knowledge is excellent. His knowledge of leadership technique is less than average.) He has very little time to devote to the Troop but will not delegate jobs to the other, trained Scouters (Tasks are handed out on an ad hoc, as-needed basis with little advance warning.)

 

Troop CC is a classic adult-run camping club for boys. Adults are all over it's meetings, directing almost everything. It just had it's first PLC in years. The Scoutmaster is untrained and leaves the running of the Troop to the many other adults. He may or may not show up for a meeting or activity. There is no Unit Commissioner. The Committee barely functions at all. (A half a dozen adults are all collecting money for summer camp.) It has a knowledgeable COR, once its Scoutmaster for many years, but he is not very strong on youth leadership himself ("Never suggest to a Scout what you can take care of yourself.") and is getting along in years. There is no published roster or contact information. Camping trips are announced on a week's notice and cancelled for lack of interest. Membership is dwindling.

 

Troop HS consists of only home-schooled boys. No-one is trained. No one knows much of anything about Scouting. It has no Unit Commissioner now as they will only accept one who is home-schooling or did home-school his kids. Scouts in leadership positions are like noncoms in the military. They are only leaders when adults are not present. Adults are usually present. No Committee is apparent. Little program beyond troop meetings in a parent's basement. No real CO - just the parents in the guise of an "association." Got to twenty but now down to six.

 

The two councils in which these units exist, and their respective districts, do not have any of the units on a "sick list."

 

Traditionally, training has been a low priority in both councils.

 

Both councils feel fortunate if one-third of their units are visited once a year by a UC.

 

One council was a "Quality Council." Two years ago it took a 30% membership drop when it was discovered that the previous SE systematically registered phantom youth and chartered phantom units.

[Abel Magwitch 10]

TAHawk wrote - One council was a "Quality Council." Two years ago it took a 30% membership drop when it was discovered that the previous SE systematically registered phantom youth and chartered phantom units.

 

I am curious, a 30% loss? That's a lot of phantom youth. Did that SE face any consequences? Did he lose his job because of the fraud? Was the rest of the council informed of the situation? Or was it simply swept under the rug? Was there anything in the next year's annual report that showed a 30% loss?

[TAHAWK 1420]

Abel, he left to be No. 2 in a region. When regional offices closed, he was not beamed up to Texas and is now SE of a small council.

 

Phantom youth and units are common practices among paid Scouters. The financing of those phantoms even has a traditional name" "Digging deep for Scouting." Our council has had two SE's fired over this practice, but BSA is like the Inspector in Casablanca": BSA is shocked, shocked, that this goes on year after year, council after council. Meanwhile, BSA has non-Scouting programs that "serve youth" to pump up numbers for United Way. (The word "fraudulent" is used by our current SE, a man who seems unusually trustworthy.) And yes, 30% got some attention.

 

By the way, we also have several "troops" that have not met in dacades - literally - but get rechartered by former Scouts in the CO's because they don't what the dead troop to die. Never meet. But there are no forged names, just phony units.

[SeattlePioneer 144]

>

 

 

Small, but probably growing steadily since the new SE took over?(This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

[SeattlePioneer 144]

A good way to assess what bogus, phantom or otherwise imaginary units may be chartered is to use the " BeAscout.Org " website to see what units are actually registered in your area.

 

When I first used BeAScout.Org, there were a number of units I didn't recognize or had failed but were still being carried. I pointed that out to my DE. I just checked that out again after a few months, and I find those questionable units are gone, except for one.

 

In fact, there are two good units which aren't listed! I'll have to let the DE know about that.

 

Of course, that's just the BE A Scout data base. A suspicious person might imagine there are other data bases out there for other purposes.

(This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)